SEC Football
Artificial Turf and SEC Expansion: Why It's Time for the Missouri Tigers to Get Real
by T Kyle King on Feb 21, 2012 8:59 PM EST
in SEC Football
With all due respect to Year2, he buried the lead. When evaluating the open letter to Tiger fans recently sent by Missouri’s athletic director, the Team Speed Kills co-author focused on Mizzou’s efforts to keep pace financially in the SEC arms race, which is all well and good, but inadequate attention was paid to this juicy tidbit:
Football Surface at Faurot Field - We will be replacing the existing artificial surface with a new artificial surface this summer (cost is approximately $1.5M). You'll see that the Tiger logo at mid field will be slightly larger, the SEC logos will be on the field, and the diamonds in the endzones will say "MIZZOU" vs. Missouri.
Wait . . . what? In honor of Mizzou’s move to the Southeastern Conference, the Tigers are uprooting their existing artificial turf and replacing it . . . with more artificial turf?!?!
67 comments
|
1 recs |
Tweet
SEC Scheduling in the Expansion Era: How to Preserve Permanent Conference Rivalries and Protect Perennial Non-Conference Rivalries
by T Kyle King on Feb 17, 2012 5:00 AM EST
in SEC Football
I’m very, very pleased that my school is a member of the Southeastern Conference. It is in no way obvious to me, however, that the interests of the SEC are so important relative to everything else that the other traditions of my school (and it is, after all, to UGA and not the SEC that I am tied by blood, books, and bourbon (and I just may have discovered my book title)), should be subordinate.
NCT (February 16, 2012)
Fans of the Georgia Bulldogs and the Auburn Tigers may not agree on much, but one belief we share in common, unanimously and wholeheartedly, is the conviction that the Deep South’s Oldest Rivalry must be preserved as an annual affray. The two schools’ shared gridiron history traces back to Charles Herty’s and George Petrie’s time together as classmates at Johns Hopkins, and, since the mid-1890s, it has taken literally a world war (1917, 1918, 1943) or the death of a player from injuries sustained during a game (1897) to prevent the Bulldogs and the Plainsmen from meeting on the football field.
Unfortunately, what increasingly appears to have been an ill-considered expansion of the Southeastern Conference has forced the league to confront some hard choices, requiring us to discuss seriously which sacred traditions we are most willing to sacrifice. I believe there is much merit in vineyarddawg’s recent proposed solution to the SEC scheduling conundrum, but, because vineyarddawg’s common-sense fix appears entirely too reasonable to gain widespread traction, I feel the need to offer an even simpler solution, and to rebut the argument that a nine-game SEC slate is necessary.
The simple solution to the SEC conference scheduling nightmare that is unfolding
by vineyarddawg on Feb 16, 2012 11:50 AM EST
in SEC Football
Back when the conference realignment saga was still moving along hot and heavy, most bystanders, many at Dawg Sports included, hailed the addition of Texas A&M as a great "get" for the SEC. Most of us (around these parts, at least) were less excited about the annexation of Missouri, favoring Clemson or West Virginia instead, but at least the Midwestern Tigers have a loyal, dedicated fanbase and multiple athletics programs with at least a modicum of success to their name.
Now, however, we are learning more about how the piper is to be paid for this expansion-a-palooza. We first heard the rumors, and now the rumors have been confirmed by none other than our own Athletic Director. As part of a commitment to remain on an 8-game conference schedule with a 14-team conference, the SEC is seriously considering the idea of dropping all permanent inter-division rivalries.
This scheduling change, while a bad idea, is not merely a bad idea. Believe me when I tell you that there could be rioters in the streets over this move. Fortunately, however, this situation that is quickly becoming untenable has a simple solution.
Simple, as in "not rocket science." (Via)
158 comments
|
7 recs |
Tweet
2011 SEC Power Poll: The Final Verdict
by T Kyle King on Jan 12, 2012 8:45 AM EST
in SEC Football
Having stirred up a little controversy with my final BlogPoll ballot, I now turn to the task of casting the campaign’s ultimate SEC Power Poll ballot, secure in the knowledge that this is the last time I will do so for a twelve-team Southeastern Conference:
Why Retaining the Eight-Game SEC Schedule is in the Georgia Bulldogs' Interests
SEC Expansion, Divisional Realignment, and Rivalries: Walking a Fine Line Between Growth and Tradition
by T Kyle King on Nov 30, 2011 5:30 PM EST
in SEC Football
As a fan of the lower-ranked of the two Southeastern Conference division champions, I read with interest C&F’s recent piece on the wisdom of the SEC’s divisional structure, in which he had this to say:
Week 13 SEC Power Poll Ballot: Giving the 'Dawgs Their Due
by T Kyle King on Nov 27, 2011 7:56 PM EST
in SEC Football
On a delightful Thanksgiving weekend hallmarked by shows of dominance by top teams and careless errors made by me in bunches, the Southeastern Conference concluded its regular season schedule, bringing us nearer to closing out the data set from which the final SEC Power Poll will be derived. Accordingly, I now offer you my evaluation of where the twelve teams in the league now stand, relative to one another:
Week 12 SEC Power Poll Ballot: Raise Your Hand If You've Won Your Division
by T Kyle King on Nov 20, 2011 9:36 PM EST
in SEC Football
It was, to put it mildly, an interesting weekend of SEC football, which clarified the picture only slightly. The Eastern Division crowned a champion, but we are still waiting for one of those Western Division weaklings to show enough gumption to step up to the plate and win the darned thing already! (I kid, I kid.) In my estimation, the twelve current teams in the Southeastern Conference stack up against one another as follows:
Showing 1 - 8 of 52 Older
